On 16/07/2011 19:49, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 15/07/2011 22:58, wrote:
On 14/07/2011 00:15, Spyke wrote:
On 13/07/2011 22:58, wrote:


I'm not quite sure about that, to be honest. I once saw a YouTube video
of an excursion train, I think a 38 stock. The train had come into
Camden Town and was holding at the platform for the starter signal,
obviously with its doors shut.

IIRC, people on the platform were confused about why the train wasn't
opening it doors, oblivious to the fact that the rolling stock was
completely out of the ordinary. The train itself was probably shorter
than usual.

Indeed, this happens on a regular basis on the 38TS tours, especially at
central London stations (with tourists who may believe that LU still run
75 year old stock on a daily basis).

Happens in Buenos Aires.


The oldest stock I've seen in passenger service in Buenos Aires is the
late 60s Toshiba units. Though I suspect some of the metre gauge stock
may be older.


I thought one of the lines was known for continuing to run some
equipment from at least the '20s.

On Jul 16, 7:11*pm, Charles Ellson wrote:

Indeed. It always seemed strange that LU were allowed to get away with
a single bell as a start signal with AFAIAA no confirmation response
from the driver long after a safer practice had been established on
BR. As well as the circumstances you describe, a single bell allows
for the signal to be given just as a danger is observed which on BR
would still have to be followed by the second press before the driver
moved off. IMU there was no LU equivalent to a BR stop/one-bell signal
(and if a door bounced open or the detection circuit failed it would
not have been possible) leaving only the emergency brake valve
available for use.

- Show quoted text -

Would it not be the case that the reason this system was kept in
place is that it actually worked? I do not recall hearing too many
tales of people falling out of trains or being drgagged along the
platform. If you give a driver "one" on the bell he has to react, the
thinking time required to acknowledge the bell - that means I need to
brake, then put the brake "in". is surely longer than a guard standing
by a "handle" seeing a problem and simply operating that handle. That
takes away the need for the delay in driver reaction and the time
taken for the gaurd to acknowledge it and operate the bell has been
used pulling the hanndle.

Other may have anecdotes from before my cranking days to suggest
otherwise, but it seems to me to have been a fairly efficient system.

Richard

*From:* Clive
*Date:* Sat, 16 Jul 2011 12:21:22 +0100

In message , Charles
Ellson writes
Neither the 38 or 62 stock that I worked on had any kind of
interlock to
cut power if any door was open.
AFAIR the only interlock was (allegedly) with the guard's bell.
There was no interlock, the doors could be opened at any time, any
place without affecting traction current to motors or anything else.
--
Clive


Being able to motor with the doors open had great advantages - for example
departing the depot in the afternoon after the train had been standing in
the heat since the AM stabling at Morden. At least this let some fresh air
into the train, as long as you remembered to close the doors before the
train reached the wash (it wasn't unknown for a train to get a good
washing inside as well!).

The most useful feature of their being no interlock was that the driver
could "notch up" (attempt to motor with the brakes on) in order to attempt
to shake a sticky door shut. Technically, this was forbidden, but most
drivers did it. It saved the Guard or driver having to walk down the train
to give the door a kick when it was partly stuck in the crap that used to
collect on the door runners of the 38 and 59 stock. Unfortunately, it was
not so easy to notch up on the 72 stock because the motor and brake were
on one handle (CTBC) and so it became an art to be able to begin to motor
and then quickly apply the brake. The effects wasn't as good, though.


One thing I used to find as a driver was that because that you would often
go into auto pilot mode. When you got to station X, you could remember
stopping at station A, but nothing of what happened anywhere in between. A
red signal or something unusual would bring you back to normal.
One problem this caused was that, coming out of auto pilot, you suddenly
thought "did I get a bell?" and then looked out of the fire extinguisher
window (38 stock) or the (inevitable) spy hole on the 59 stock door to see
if you could see if the doors were closed.


Guards being quick on the bell combined with slow drivers was another
problem, and this was often associated with the bounce you mentioned -
either contact or door. A Guard would get the pilot light and give the
bell, only to find the pilot light lost. The correct procedure would then
be to call the driver over the (mostly) crap Loudaphone or pull the handle
down before re-opening and closing the doors or leaving the train.
A driver might be slow starting because he was rolling a fag or poring his
tea. The usual thing a driver sid if there was a delay before he was ready
to go was to notch up for another bell, just to make sure it was still OK
to go. Some drivers didn't do it and just started when they were ready.

There have been several cases in the past where the Guard, after giving
the bell and then lost his pilot light, has got off the train to go deal
with the problem door and meanwhile the driver has started the train and
left the Guard on the platform. The train then going off to the next
station minus a Guard and with the Guards door open. Passengers rarely
pulled the handle down when this happened. The first that a driver knew
anything was wrong was when he arrived at the next station and the doors
didn't open. There was no train radio until a few years before the 59
stock left the Northern line, so there was no way of contacting the
driver.

Roger

In message , at 06:27:58
on Sun, 17 Jul 2011, remarked:

One thing I used to find as a driver was that because that you would often
go into auto pilot mode. When you got to station X, you could remember
stopping at station A, but nothing of what happened anywhere in between.

That used to happen to me a lot when I was much younger. Especially if
I'd moved from one rented place to another in the same town. On going
home in the evening, I would "wake up" approaching somewhere I'd moved
out of months ago. Very disconcerting, but somehow I grew out of it.
--
Roland Perry

On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 01:53:17 -0700 (PDT), Fat richard
wrote:

On Jul 16, 7:11*pm, Charles Ellson wrote:

Indeed. It always seemed strange that LU were allowed to get away with
a single bell as a start signal with AFAIAA no confirmation response
from the driver long after a safer practice had been established on
BR. As well as the circumstances you describe, a single bell allows
for the signal to be given just as a danger is observed which on BR
would still have to be followed by the second press before the driver
moved off. IMU there was no LU equivalent to a BR stop/one-bell signal
(and if a door bounced open or the detection circuit failed it would
not have been possible) leaving only the emergency brake valve
available for use.

- Show quoted text -

Would it not be the case that the reason this system was kept in
place is that it actually worked?

Like "stop and proceed", another Underground specialty with a string
of lethal consequences over the years ?

I do not recall hearing too many
tales of people falling out of trains or being drgagged along the
platform. If you give a driver "one" on the bell he has to react, the
thinking time required to acknowledge the bell - that means I need to
brake, then put the brake "in". is surely longer than a guard standing
by a "handle" seeing a problem and simply operating that handle.

Half the time the guard was not standing on the same side as the
emergency brake, the other times he was still not that close to it.

That
takes away the need for the delay in driver reaction and the time
taken for the gaurd to acknowledge it and operate the bell has been
used pulling the hanndle.

Other may have anecdotes from before my cranking days to suggest
otherwise, but it seems to me to have been a fairly efficient system.

On 16/07/2011 21:32, wrote:
On 16/07/2011 19:49, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 15/07/2011 22:58, wrote:
On 14/07/2011 00:15, Spyke wrote:
On 13/07/2011 22:58, wrote:


I'm not quite sure about that, to be honest. I once saw a YouTube
video
of an excursion train, I think a 38 stock. The train had come into
Camden Town and was holding at the platform for the starter signal,
obviously with its doors shut.

IIRC, people on the platform were confused about why the train wasn't
opening it doors, oblivious to the fact that the rolling stock was
completely out of the ordinary. The train itself was probably shorter
than usual.

Indeed, this happens on a regular basis on the 38TS tours,
especially at
central London stations (with tourists who may believe that LU still
run
75 year old stock on a daily basis).

Happens in Buenos Aires.


The oldest stock I've seen in passenger service in Buenos Aires is the
late 60s Toshiba units. Though I suspect some of the metre gauge stock
may be older.


I thought one of the lines was known for continuing to run some
equipment from at least the '20s.

That may be the Trochita which is some 1000 miles from Buenos Aires.[1]
I also got the Toshibas too old, they were mid 70s I gather.

[1] A line that is currently suffering from volcanic ash, an excuse even
BR hadn't thought of.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

On 17/07/2011 21:45, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 16/07/2011 21:32, wrote:
On 16/07/2011 19:49, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 15/07/2011 22:58, wrote:
On 14/07/2011 00:15, Spyke wrote:
On 13/07/2011 22:58, wrote:


I'm not quite sure about that, to be honest. I once saw a YouTube
video
of an excursion train, I think a 38 stock. The train had come into
Camden Town and was holding at the platform for the starter signal,
obviously with its doors shut.

IIRC, people on the platform were confused about why the train wasn't
opening it doors, oblivious to the fact that the rolling stock was
completely out of the ordinary. The train itself was probably shorter
than usual.

Indeed, this happens on a regular basis on the 38TS tours,
especially at
central London stations (with tourists who may believe that LU still
run
75 year old stock on a daily basis).

Happens in Buenos Aires.


The oldest stock I've seen in passenger service in Buenos Aires is the
late 60s Toshiba units. Though I suspect some of the metre gauge stock
may be older.


I thought one of the lines was known for continuing to run some
equipment from at least the '20s.

That may be the Trochita which is some 1000 miles from Buenos Aires.[1]
I also got the Toshibas too old, they were mid 70s I gather.


No, no, I was referring specifically to rolling stock on the Buenos
Aires Metro

[1] A line that is currently suffering from volcanic ash, an excuse even
BR hadn't thought of.

Give it some time.

"Charles Ellson" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 02:01:40 +0100, Clive
wrote:

In message
,
W14_Fishbourne writes
However, I am a bit mystified why the door interlocking doesn't (a)
just prevent power being taken when a door is open rather than, as the
implication is here, (b) allowing power to be taken then cutting it
off if a door is open. Presumably interlocking of type (b) also covers
the event of a train door coming open while the train is moving,
giving two levels of protection for the price of one.
In my time on both the Northern and Central lines trains were frequently
moved around depots with the doors wide open, if only to get some fresh
air through them.

In pre-OPO times it was not uncommon for trains to leave the carriage
shed at Queens Park with the doors open during the Summer.


I saw a Central Line train parked in a siding with what looked like the
doors open on both sides last week during the hot spell. Pretty sure it was
at Debden.
Wish they could have done the same on the train I was using, the ventilation
is appalling when hot.

"Neil Williams" wrote in message
.net...
On Thu, 14 Jul 2011 19:40:04 +0100, Arthur Figgis
wrote:
A while back I was on that old EMU which used to come out to play
on the
Great Eastern, and the staff were struggling to convince passengers
it
was a real service and they wouldn't have to pay extra for it.

I saw someone miss a Marple train formed of 101 685 at Manc Picc ages ago
as they thought (only exclaiming this after departure) it was "their
museum piece".


On a similar note when they turned out a 101 for a Hadfield train the
passengers didn't believe it.
They all stood further along the platform assuming a 305 would arrive in
front of the 101 until
the driver poked his head out of the cab window a couple of minutes before
departure.

John

Like "stop and proceed", another Underground specialty with a string
of lethal consequences over the years ?

Generally the stop and proceed rule works fine and is used thousands of
times a year on the Underground. The problem is mostly driver error with
the driver going too fast (too fast so that they can't stop short of any
obstruction - e,g, a train in front) or resuming speed too soon (at a
wrong signal).

Most of the staff errors have been overcome over the year by fitting Speed
Control After Tripping (SCAT) to trains which limits the speed to about
9mph after resetting the tripcock. In fact it always used to be taught
that the speed after applying the rule was "3 to 5mph" or "so you can
count the sleepers".

Roger